Ehmd 



^^e«-t.h 



:^X 



H^o. V\^v^rJ.y J<^^i^ 



s^o 



o 



^ A^iyUd 



%.xy 1.«(.0 



." ■•'■M,.,,„„M,,|,|,|„,„„„„ .III, lllllllllllll 

011895 870 6 m. 



pH8^ 



E 440 
.J68 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 



OP THE 



Hon. Reverdy Johnson, 



OF i^j^:ei-^^'XjA.istjd. 



DELIVERED BEFORE THE POLITICAL FRIENDS OF 



Hon. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 

%\ a gUcting in Jiancwil |)iill, Boston, 



& 



^y 



Y/ 



On Thursday, June 7, 1860. 



TO WHICH IS ADDED THE 



LETTER OF THE HON. REYERDY JOHNSON, 

io the dlhiiirman of the Sou^Ias Peetinu in gar §orh 

On the 22(Z of May, 1860. 



Baltimore . . Printed by John Murphy & Co. 

Publishers, Booksellers, Printers & Stationers, 

Makble Bttilding, 182 Baltimoee street, 
1860. 



SPEECH of HON. REVERDY JOHNSON, 

In Faneuil Hall, Boston, June 1th, 1860. 



> 



Mr. Ghairman and Gentlemen of Massachusetts: 

The sensibility with which I feel this cordial reception, I want words to express. 
All that I can do is to say, that I most sincerely thank you, and that I shall ever 
gratet'ullv remember it. The place too where it is given, imparts to it, if that 
were possible, an additional value. Faneuil Hali> ! What thoughts rush to the 
memory, at its very name? How lost the soul, that can within its sacred pre- 
cincts, fail to be inspired by the impulse of a pure patriotism, and an undying love 
of his whole country 1 What names rise in their majesty before us? What times 
and issues and struggles? The very ground we stand upon is holy. Here, was 
Freedom's temple. Here did the voices ring, that called a nation to arms, and 
echoing and re-echoing through the entire extent of our land, made their Avay 
across the deep, carrying glad tidings to the oppressed of the world, and dismay 
and alarm, to the oppressors. Then, no degrading sectional prejudices threatened 
disaster. Then, no thought was entertained of interfering with our respective 
social institutions. Each and all were patriotic. They knew but one country, 
that which included all the States. They knew but one freedom, that which was 
comprehensive of our whole land. They fought and bled for it, and achieved it 
not for one but for all, and believed, as I trust in heaven the result Avill prove that 
they justly believed, that by all and for ever it would be enjoyed under one Union 
against which to plot would be esteemed the world over the foulest treason ever 
harbored m human bosom. I trust that I shall bear in mind the hallowing influ- 
ences of this Hall, in all I am about to submit to yx)u. If I was capable of wish- 
ing to forget them, I feel that I could not in such a place as this. Could I be so 
lost 3ny where, to patriotic duty, as to wish to arouse sectional animosity to 
" endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and 
views," I should be awed into silence, — dumb from very shame, in this place 
sacred to liberty and to Union. 

Not forgetting, therefore, where I am, but guided, I hope, by the spirit of the 
place, I proceed to discuss the topics which more especially belong to the occasion 
that has convened the meeting. 

A Presidential contest is at hand. It involves matters of high import. From a 
conviction most honestly entertained, and adopted after, as I think a full and fair 
review of the whole ground, I came to the conclusion (the old Whig party being 
practically at an end, because of the practical termination of most of the measures 
of public policy, which gave it its national character,) that in the existing con- 
dition of the country, that character belonged only to the Democratic parly and 
could by that party only, be maintained. In this organization every State of the 
Union was included. It recognized no territorial limits. The equality of the 
States was one of its fundamental principles. It denounced all assaults on their 
respective domestic institutions — it conceded that of slavery to be a legal one, not 
only because of State laws, but because of its recognition by the constitution of 
the United States. It admitted the obligation of every State to pay implicit obedi- 
ence to the clauses of that instrument containing such recognition, as implicit, as 
to any other of its provisions. This institution has become the sole cause of peril. 
It was disturbing the fraternity of feeling which our fathers entertained, and threat- 
ened to involvfe us in social, if not revolutionary hostility. — Slavery had so long 
existed in the Southern States, dating its origin to a period prior to the revolution, 
and was, and is, so intimately connected with all their pursuits and habits, that 
they have nothing that they value more highly, or deem more vital to their pros- 
perity. All assaults upon it by citizens of other States, could not, therefore, fail 
to engender sentiments of ill wdl. Such assaults have, we know, been made for 
years, and with a bitterness almost insufferable, by tnany persons in the free States. 



The politician, the pross, that misflity fngiiu- for evil, as well as good to man- 
kind, even the pulpit, vvhifh should ever he devoted to the siiiijle .service ol' (jud, 
has been seen fnnn day to day and year to year hurling aiiathiMiias at the institu- 
tion. The result, if these are sufl'ered to continue, nothing l)Ul willul hliiidness 
can avoid seeing. Social separation lirst (ollows — it now. indeed, in a great meas- 
ure exists — and this not only will he, hut must he followed l)y political separation. 
This danger, and these its (lirel'ul results, it seems to me, could he hest averted hy 
the |)olicy in regard to it avowed hy the Democratic parly — announced espc^cially 
in ttie compromises of '5U and of '51, and in the princi|)les promulgated hy the 
Cincinnati convention of '5G, and recognized in the acce[)tan(;e of Presiilenl Buch- 
anan of his nomination hy that convention to the high ollice he now fills. That 
policy,declareil to the country in terms admitting of no possible douht, was non- 
iNTEKVKNTioN BY CoNtiUKss. Whatever dilferences existed, as to the ell'ect of 
such non-intervention upon the introduction ol' slavery into any organized terri- 
tory, and its protection and continuance when there, none was ex|)ressed or enter- 
tained, as to llie obligation growing out of these compromises, as far as the Deni- 
^ ocratic party was concerned ; at all limes and under all circumstances m good 

^ faitli to resist any and every kind of Congressional intervention. The subject was 

J to be forever excluded from the halls of C'ongress. It was in those halls that what- 

S. ever peril there might he in it was siipposeil mainly to dwell. It was there, and 

I ' there only, that olTensive intervention in the form of law against slavery in the Terri- 

' tories could be hail. It was there that southern and northern men were to meet 

' ' face to face. It was there that aspersions might be made on the South that could 

^ but serve to fan into a flame the controversy and engulf the Union, sooner or later, 

i; in an abvss of destruction. It was, therefore, agreed that from that arena the sub- 

ject should be forever removed. What might l)e the effect of this principle on the 
Soutli ; what rights would remain to her in relierence to the introduction of slavery 
into such a territory, were not then settled. As to these, conflicting opinions were 
held; but all agreed in the one great doctrine, that whichever of such opinions might 
be correct. Congress was never again to interfere with the subject. It was lience- 
forth to be submitted exclusively, as far as the Democratic party could accomplish 
it, to .the people of the Territory, subjiT-et to no other limitation than the Constitu- 
tion of the United States enjoined. The language of the Kansas and IN'ebraska 
act of the 30th May, '54, defining the legislative powers, is, "the legislative power 
of the Territory shall extend to nil righlfid subjects of legislation cousisieut with the 
Conslilutioii (f the United StaUs and the provisions of this act." There being in 
liie act no provision affecting the question, it will be seen that every proper sub- 
ject of legislation, consistent with the constitution, is entrusted to the local legisla- 
tive department. Whatever legislation can affect, not prohibited by the constitu- 
tion, such legislature, it was agreed, should have the authority to affect. Sulyecl 
to that qualiiication alone, the entire sphere of legislation is submitted to the ter- 
ritorial government. Tliere no doubt did prevail at that time contrariety of views, 
as to the operation of the limitation amongst the statesmen by whom the act was 
contrived and passed. Some were of opinion that the Constitution propria vigore, 
both against Congress and the people of a Territorial government, gave the right 
to an owner of slaves to emigrate to the territory with his slaves and there to hold 
them. Some thought that Congress had the power to exclude the institution, but 
that it was inexpedient to exert it — it being better to submit it to those most con- 
cerned, the people of the Territory-;-whilst others thought that though Congress 
had not the power, it was inherent in such a people, when organized into a gov- 
ernment, as incident and necessary to their social, political condition. Upon these 
contradictory views, all concurred that Congress was not the proper forum to de- 
cide. Those who thought that that body possessed the power lo prohibit, consid- 
ered that it was injudicious, because dangerous to the peace of the country to ex- 
ercise it. Those who thought otherwise, and that the territorial government would 
equally be without power, from the same patriotic motive agreed that the question 
should be excluded from Congress; whilst those who thought that there existed 
an inherent right in a territorial government to legislate upon the subject, with like 
motive consented to abandon forever all Congressional interposition. But provi- 
sion was made for an easy, an early and a just solution of those several difficulties. 
Slaves might be carried into the Territory, the right to hold them might be ques- 
sioned, either because of the non-existence of any local law establishing slavery, 
or because of such a law prohibiting it. The owners' right in either contingency 
could readily be made the subject of judicial controversy; and for such a contro- 
versy provision and ample provision was made. It was to be passed upon, first 



by the local courts, and then, witliout regard to the actual value of the property 
in dispute, or whether the question arose in an ordinary case at law or on the re- 
turn to a writ of habeas corpus, an appeal was granted to the Supreme Court of 
the U. S. By the judgment of that tribunal on that very question — no other — it 
was as a democratic principle agreed that the party would thenceforward stand. 
On tliis principle the Convention of '56 acted ; by its aid and under its healing and 
just influence the canvass of thai year was everywhere carried on, and resulted, 
as we know, in victory, and for a time in the assurance of peace and safety to the 
country, and as it was hoped and believed, in preserving in all its integrity, to 
meet all coming national trials, the Democratic party. Divisions then on this 
before disturliing, but now supposed happily adjusted subject, were not dreamed of. 
The public verdict had sanctioned the policy as demanded bv the condition of 
the country of the great national and conservative docirine of Congressional non- 
intervention, with slavery in an organized Territory, either in its establishment, 
exclusion or protection. The matter was solemnly agreed to be referred to the 
territorial people, with no other restraint than the Constitution of the United 
States. And if in time from the operation of that principle a contest should arise, 
as to the extent of that restraint, and the right which because of the restraint, a 
citizen of the South owning slaves, had to take them into such territory, that 
was to be decided by the judgment of ttie Supreme Court of the United States. 
This compromise or party understanding, so obviously fair in itself, and so com- 
mended by the glorious triumph acliieved under its faith, received at the lime the 
general approval of the Democracy everywhere. And this was the more decided, 
because it promised a permanent and harmonious termination of the only subject 
which could possibly disturb the councils of the party. It rested on a national 
basis. It imputed no censure, moral or political, to any section. It countenanced 
no dishonoring blot on the South, but on the contrary, erased from the statute 
book one that had existed there for thirty-four years. In a word, it recognized 
the equality of rights of all, as resting on a constitution designed for the protec- 
tion of all. What then has since occurred that should justly stir up dissensions 
in the party, then so happily harmonized, on this, before distracting topic? 
What has since occurred to arrest the healthful operation of this party asree- 
ment? It is not pretended that in the territory embraced by the act of '54, or in 
any other, any member of the party has proposed Congressional intervention. 
On the contrary, we know that such a proposition would receive the sternest 
opposition of all. It is not pretended, that in that or in any other territory, legis- 
lation hostile to slavery, or destructive or even unfriendly to slave property, has 
been had. It is not pretended that any case has occurred in which the right to 
such property has been questioned. If there be such property there, it is held 
without contest; no man disputes the title; and if there be none there, it is 
because slave owners have not esteemed it to their advantage to take it there. 
It is not pretenled that doubts exist as to the purity or intelligence of the local 
judiciary, and still less is it pretended that all conlidence may not be reposed in 
the integrity and ability of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
The question then, stipulated by the compromise, to be referred to the judiciary 
has not arisen. 

That question was not, whether Congress possessed the power to prohibit, 
establish or protect the institution. It was a leading feature of the agreement, 
that Congress should not for any purpose or at any time, interfere. Its right 
therefore to interfere, was not the one on which the courts were to decide, for as 
no interference was to be had, that question of right could never arise. 

The very section of the act of 1820 called the Missouri Compromise, contain- 
ing C'ongressional intervention was repealed, and the authority to repeal it no 
one then, or since, has questioned. The case, therefore, embraced within the 
agreement incorporated into the act of '54, has never presented itself. No Court 
has been called upon to decide it, or could have been called upon since the right 
to hold such property in a territory, without or against its local legislation has 
never, in any case, been disputed. Whether, therefore, the Constitution itself 
gives the right, or it is subject by the terms of the act of '54 to territorial legisla- 
tive power, or whether such power embraces it, as inherent to its political 
organization, the]onhj questions upon the subject agreed to be submitted to judicial 
determination, are now as open as they Averewhen the act was passed. Am I 
right in saying, that these only are the questions reserved for judicial determina- 
tion? This is evident, first, from the provision in lh,e act giving a writ of error 
or appeal to the Supreme Court, without regard loVthe value in controversy 



or ihe form of the procpecling "in all cases iiiciiidiiig title to slaves," or a 
" quegiiDn of personal (reedoni." 

The j\Jissoiiri proliibition being, as a part of the Compromise repealed, such 
enquiries, only involve questions, arising under the Constitution, or territorial 
laws, coniuion or legislative, and lliese have never been presented, the fact not 
having occurred out of which only they could arise. But the proceedings and 
debates in both brunches of Congress, whilst the bill was pending and"" after- 
wards, demonstrate it. 1 have but time to refer to some of these. On the 4th 
January, '54, the Committee on territories, to whom the bill had been referred, 
made a report, in which, amongst oiher things adverting to the Coinpromise 
measures of '50, they said, that these " allirin and rest upon the following 
propositions: first, that all questions pertainin<; to slavery in the territories, and 
in the States to be framed ihereirom, are to be left to the decision of the people 
residing therein by their appropriate representatives to be chosen by them for 
that pur()ose. Second. I'hat all cases involving title to slaves and questions 
of personal freeilo.ii are referred to the adjudiculion of the local Iribuimls, with tlie 
rigid of appeal to Ike Supreme Court of the United States." 

The tirsi principle and which forms a part of the act of '54, the withdrawal of 
the sulijeci from Congress and its submission to the people, was warmly ap- 
prov^'d by almost every democratic Senator and representative at the time and 
afterwards in '5G. 

Mr. Mason, of Virginia, on the 25th of May, '54, addressing the Senate, said 
"Then. Mr. President, where do we stand? Here is a bill repealino- and for 
ever annulling a measure (the Missouri restriction) always odious to the Scjuth 
and ollensive to its honor, brought forward from a quarter ii'/terc the majorily 
resides; and is the South to reject it because it contains, also, an incidental pol- 
icy or a different principle, which we do not approve? For once, sir, with a 
clear, unhesitating judgment, I answer, No." Again, "This bill is objection- 
able in some of its features, it is true. It is objectionable in that feaitire of it, for 
one, xvkich does nol deny to the people the right to legislate on the subject of 
slavery. It is also objectionable in thai clause of it which provides that foreigners, 
those not naturalized, shall participate in the political power of the territory. 
These, however, are qukstions of expediency alone. There is no prin- 
ciple, FAR less any Constitutional law involved in them, and if we 
can set the other and higher principle established in your statute book, that 
henceforth power is denied to the Congress of the United Slates to legislate for the 
exc/fwio/t o/"s/atJen/, by yielding the question of expediency, I do not think we 
shall be rebuked for a bad bargain." 

Mr. Benjamin of Louisiana, on the same day, speaking of the bill, stated, inter 
alia: "It proposes to announce to the People of the United States, that the gen- 
eral government is not to legislate at all upon the question of slavery. It is not 
to legislate to extend it ; it is not to legislate to prohibit it : it is a forbidden subject ; 
the fiaming sword ought to be guard all access to it. No impious feet ouiiht to 
endeavor to tread within its sacred precincts. That is the principle which I find 
in this bill and that is the principle which I wish to see established in the Coun- 
try — and when it shall have been established it will be in vain for fanatics, either 
North or South, to endeavor to create any permanent excitement in tiie minds of 
the American People. The aliment is gone, — you may li<jht the flame, but the 
fuel may be wanting — it will die out of itself."' Short sighted statesman— short 
sighted admirers, who heard or read this eloquent patriotic effusion. Little did he 
or tliey foresee, that the time would come and in a few years, the 2-2d May I860, 
when this very Senator would be found exerting in the same presence, his ad- 
milted powers to disparage the claims of the very author of the bill, the virtues 
of which he so glowingly depicted, to the confidence of the very party and coun- 
try he was then said to be so greatly and signally servmg. Little did he or they 
imagine that he would soon be tbund expressing as against the author of the bill 
a preference for a Northern citizen now before the nation as a Candidate for the 
highest office in its gift and known to be the original autlior of "the irrepressible 
conflict," the doctrine, which heing also maintained by Gov. Seward was said to 
be so odious and oflensive, if not destructive of Southern rishts, that many of 
her sons, in Congress, and out of it, openly proclaimed that his election, how- 
ever consliintional, would be just cause of revolution and should and would pro- 
duce it. Little could it then have been conceived, that that very Senator would 
be seen striving to create the very "excitement in the minds of the American 



People" he then so warmlv and palriotically deprecated — that he would be found 
furnishing the aliment "which fed it," and the "fuel," "wanting" to-^kindle 
and maintain "the flame." 

These observations are made with no unkindness to Mr. Benjamin. No one 
better knows than I do or appreciates more his professional and Senatorial abili- 
ty or his personal qualities. His recent speech only serves to show^ that how- 
ever gifted, by nature and improved by cultivation, his mind is subject to human 
weaknesses, and thatamonsst these, as that occasion exhibited, are the prejudices 
of personal feeling which wherever found, are certain to disturb the judgment and 
pervert the character. But to return. In the course of the same speech of '54, 
addressing himself to Northern Senators, he further said: "We ask of you the 
passage of no law; we ask of you the enactment of no statute, any further than 
to put us back just in that position occupied by our fathers when they acted upon 
the principle which we now invoke, of leaving each section of the con- 
federacy FREE TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN ITS OWN INTERNAL DOMESTIC IN- 
STITUTIONS, AND PROMOTE ITS OWN HAPPINESS AS IT SEES PROPER." Again, re- 
ferring to the foundation of our Independence, he declared that our revolution- 
ary sires "first enunciated in the face of the civilized world, in the face of the 
then almost omnipotent English Parliament, the principle that man had a right 
to self-government. They first declared that it was against the inherent rights 
of mankind/or a (rovernment to legislate for the local interests of a distant depend- 
ency,^' and added, " all that is asked now is. the extension of the same principle 
to the Territories of the United States." The bill was maintained on the like 
ground by Messrs. Cass and Toombs in the Senate, and in the House, amongst 
others, by Mr. Stephens of Georgia, one of the brightest and purest men ever in 
the public councils, and still, I am glad to say, what his character guaranteed he 
would be, a faithful adherent to all its stipulations. 

The second principle announced by the Committee, the reference to the judi- 
ciary of all controversies as to slave property or personal freedom, also received 
the universal support of Democratic members. As to the expediency and per- 
fect justice of this, there existed no difference of opini^on. As to the rights which 
the claimant of such property would have in the territory, there did prevail, as I 
have before told you, different viev/s. It was this very difference that gave rise to 
the reference to the judiciary. 

Mr. Toucev, the present Secretary of the Navy, adverting to the right, said in 
deliate on the 2d July, '5G, " that we cannot define — that is a question exclusively 
for the judicial tribunals.'* 

Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, on the 24th of February, '54, after stating the tenns 
of grant of legislative power to the Territories, said "and if they (the local 
legislature) should assume powers which are thought not to be consistent, with 
the Constitution, the Courts will decide that question ivhenever it may be raised. 
There is a difference of opinion among the friends of this measure as to the 
extent of the limits which the Constitution imposes upon the Territorial Legis- 
latures. This bill proposes to leave these differences to the decisions of the 
Courts. To that tribunal I am willing to leave this decision as it was once pro- 
posed to be left by the celebrated Compromise of the Senator from Delaware 
(Mr. Clayton) a measure which according to my understanding was the best 
Compromise which was offered upon this subject of slavery. I say then that I 
am willing to leave this point upon which the friends of the bill are at difference 
to liie decision of the Courts." I have not time and it would be a useless tax 
upon your indulgence if I had to cite further from the debates. What I have 
said is conclusive, on these points: First, that the subject of slavery in the 
Territories was as a policy of peace, to be permanently discarded from Congress. 
In no contingency was that body to interfere with it. To them was intrusted 
but the single duty of " non-intervention." Second, That the subject was to be 
referred to the Territorial Legislatures, with no other qualification, than the 
Constitution of the United States established ; and Third, there being differences 
of opinion as to the extent of such qualification, that these were to be referred 
solely to the judiciary when the occasion practically involvinj ihem, should 
arise. The condition of things giving rise to the law, and the object of the law, 
is also very clearly staled in another speech of Mr. Benjamin, delivered in the 
Senate on the 2d of May, '56; a speech, by the byv'which sepms to me to have 
been prepared as if bv party request for the \he\p approaching Presid'^ntial 
contest. A ftf^r referring to strictures on the law of 1^54, made bv its opponents, 
on the course of its friends, and stating that what wa^ said of it by its Northern 



friends was ri<jht, and that wliat was said of ii by its Southern friends was also 
rigtffyie added : 

^Tie history of the pasi^ajro of the bill is familiar to us all. There was a 
series of propositions presented to its advocates, upon all of which thi-y cuuld 
agree, save one. All aj^reed upon the riijht of a Slate to enter into this Union 
whenever it had sufiicient population, and had formed a Republican Constitu- 
tion, whether that ('onsiitution establislied or prohibited slavery. That provision 
was, therefore, inserted in the bill. All agreed that it was prejudicial to the best 
interests of the country that the subject of slavery should be tliscussed in Con- 
gress. All afiretd- that, whether Congress had the power or not to exclude 
slavery from the Territories, it ouqht not to e.vercise it. All agreed that, if that 
power was owneil l)y us, we ought to delesate it to the people whose interests 
were to be alTected by the institutions established at home. We therefore put 
that into the bill. 

" Then came the point on which we disagreed ; some said — as I say — Congress 
has no power to exclude slavery from the common Territory ; it cannot delegate 
it, and the people in tlie Territory cannot exercise it except at the time when they 
form their Constitution. Others said Congress has the power ; Congress can del- 
egate it, and the people can exercise it. Still otiiers said, my honorable friend 
from Michigan (^Mr Cass) said, that the power to legislate on that subject was a 
power inherent in every people with whom the doctrine of self-government was 
anything more than an empty name. On this proposition we disagreed ; and to 
what conclusion did we come ? We said in this bill, that we transferred to the 
people of that Territory the entire power to control, by their own legislation, their 
own domestic institutions, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution ; that 
we would not interfere with them ; that they might do as they pleased on the 
subject; that the Constitution alone should govern. And then, in order to pro- 
vide a means by which the Constitution couKI govern, by which that single unde- 
cided qneslion cniild be determined, we of the South, conscious that we were right, 
the North asserting the same confidence in its own doctrines, agreed that every 
question touching human slavery, or human freedom, should be appealable to the 
Supreme Court of the United States for its decision." 

It will be seen from this extract, which, with the speaker's accustomed accuracy 
and perspicuity, states very clearly the object and nature of the law, and the dif- 
ference of views as to the power of Congress to delegate their authority to legis- 
late to the prejudice of slavery to a Territorial Legislature, and as to the inherent 
pow^rof a Territorial people to exercise it, that it was agreed on all sides by dem- 
ocratic senators to transfer to the people of that Territory the entire power to con- 
trol, by their own legislalipn, their own domestic institutions, subject onlv to the 
provisions of the Constitution, that wo could not interfere with them, that they 
might do as thoy pleased on the subject, that the Constitution alone should govern, 
and then, in order to provide a means by which the Constitution could govern, 
bij lohich that single undecided question could be determined, we of the South, 
conscious that we were right, the North asserting the same confidence in its own 
doctrines, agreed that every question touching human slavery, or human freedom, 
should be appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States for its decision. 
Now Judge Douglas and his friends, and ninety-nine in every hundred of the 
Northern Democracy, have faithfully stood by this Compromise, and have not at 
any time intimated a desire to abandon it. 

The only question, therefore, to be considered, and to which is to be attributed 
the present dissensions in the party, dissensions which endanger its success in the 
approaching strugijle, is, has that " single question" been decided by the Supreme 
Court. No one pretends that it has been before any Territorial Court. No one, 
therefore, pretends that any "question touching human slavery or human free- 
dom" has been brought before the Supreme Court by appeal from any judgment 
of such local Court. -No legal controversy, and that was the only one embraced by 
the act, has occurred in the Territory. The effect, therefore, of the Constitution 
upon Territorial legislative power, or upon the rights to slave property in the Ter- 
ritory, has not even been before the Supreme Court for decision, and although 
that, as was correctly staled by the distinguished Senator, was " the single unde- 
cided question" left open by the Compromise, it is now asserted, even by him, 
that that question should be conceded by Northern and patriotic associates, to be 
with the South, because, a; he says, and as every one says who is warring against 
Judge Douglas, that single question has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. 
The Northern Democrhcy maintain that it has not and with almost entire un- 



8 

animity — Judge Douglas concurs in this opinion — whilst neither he nor they 
repudiate the Compromise, neither he nor they, intend now to disregard the deci- 
sion when made, nor will they hereafter whatever it may be, refuse to abid^y it. 
They deny the judgment. They call for the proof of the decision and they are 
referred to what is called the Dred Scott adjudication. Having argued that case 
twice and with every right, because with every means, to speak of it with all 
becoming confidence, I confidently aver, that that decision is not the decision 
by which the question of the Territorial Legislative power over or of the constitu- 
tional right to slave property was to be decided. A few words, will, I think, make 
this plain. These several opinions were entertained when the, bill in question was 
passed. 1st. That Congress had power to prohibit slavery. 2d. That it had not. 
3. That independent of that power, a Territorial Legislature had an inherent right 
as a principle of self-government, to legislate either to prohibit, establish or protect 
it as a domestic institution properly and legally concerning themselves alone — or 
in the language of Gen. Cass as given to us by Mr. Benjamin, it "was a power 
inherent in every people with whom the doctrine of self-government was anything 
more than any empty name." All agreed in these views : 1st. That whether the 
Congressional power existed or not, it was not advisable to exercise it. 2d. That 
if it did exist it should be delegated to those immediately interested. 3d. If it did 
not, the terms in which the delegation was made however comprehensive would 
be restricted by that fact, provided their operation legally would be thereby affected ; 
and 4th. That they would not and should not be so restrained if the inherent 
right maintained by Gen. Cass and those who agreed with him, was the true 
doctrine. Now, I suppose it will be admitted that the very question of territorial 
power, either as delegated 'or inherent, has not been decided in the Scott case. 
The only point before the court, as regards this controversy in that case was, 
whether Congress had the power of itself to prohibit slavery, by its own direct 
legislation. It was that legislation alone whose legality was involved. What, under 
the delegation to a territorial legislature, of a power to legislate upon " all rightful 
subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States," such 
legislature could do, was not before the court at all, and could not have been, 
since the case arose prior to the passage of the act of '54. Nor was the question 
of inherent power. The opinion of a majority of the court, upon the point of 
Congressional power, was against it. And upon these grounds: 1. That what is 
called the territorial clause in the Constitution, relied upon as including the power, 
did not give it, as that was solely applicable to the territory claimed by or belong- 
ing to the United States at the adoption of the Constitution. 2. That under the 
power to admit new States, territory might be acquired, and the right to govern 
was incident to the right to acquire. 3. That the right to acquire was not for 
colonial purposes, but for the creation of new States to be admitted into the Union ; 
and 4. That the right to govern did not give the right to exclude slavery, as such 
a right could not be implied from the one to acquire. 

It was consequently with Congressional power only that the Court was deal- 
ing. Territorial power, delegated or inherent, was not considered. It was the 
right of Congress to deny power over the subject to the territorial government, 
not the right to submit it to such government subject only to constitutional re- 
straints. It will be further seen that the authority of Congress w^as not placed 
upon the general legislative article of the Constitution, the 1st, but upon the 4th, 
the one providing for the admission of new States. The authority, therefore, is 
not limited to the subjects contained in the general clause. That has nothing to 
do with it. The specific objects of legislation there contained, and beyond 
which no legislative power is given, are not to any extent applicable to the 
clause for the admission of new States. The right to acquire territory for that 
purpose, the admission- of new States, says the Court, carries with it the right 
to govern, limited by the same purpose. Such a government, for such an object, 
one would suppose should be clothed with the power to regulate all and every 
domestic institution. The people should, in order to fit them for admission into 
the Union as a State, be entrusted with all self-government and with all authority 
necessary to that end not expressly prohibited bv the Constitution to a Slate 
itself. The power of Congress is denied by the Court over the particular do- 
mestic institution of slavery, because such a power cannot, in their view, be, 
implied from the mere incidental power to govern. But does it follow from 
this that they may not create a government clothed wflh that very power. It is 
not pretemled that in the particular case of Kansas Ithe territorial legislative 
authority does not embrace every other domestic institu\ion. Why then does, it 



not embrace this? Why is this to be alone excepteil, and esiablishetl or regu- 
lated among tiiem asjainst their will, or without their approval ? There certainly 
isTlo express prohibition in the Constitution, except such as are common to the 
Stales, and these do not deny to the latter authority over the subject. Why 
■should one be implied as to the Territories? When a case arises preseiitin<i the 
question for decision, we shall be infurmed what the correct doctrine is. In the 
meantime, I insist that it is not only not clo><ed hy the Dred Scoll judgment, but 
not in my o|)inion in the slightest degree alFectcd by it. * 

But supposing that the territory has not the |)ower by virtue merely of the 
delegation to it, of control over all rightful subjects of legistation, how can it be 
maintained that that decision negatives the inherent power advocated by General 
Cass? It is now, I believe, the fashion of some Southern gentlemen to treat this 
doctrine almost with contempt. It was not always so. In the speech of Mr. 
Benjamin, of 1851, before quoted, he not only considers it as entitled to all 
respect, but seems to have been almost a convert to it. These are his words: 
"The honorable Senator from Michigan, (Mr. Cass,) in a speech iikplete avith 

SOUND ARGUMKNT AND TRUE REPUBLICAN P RINCIPI.ES, TH E FORCE OF WHICH IT 

wour-D BE DIFFICULT TO ANSWER, has advocatcd in this Senate the doctrine that 
there is an inherent right under the Constitution of the United Slates, in the 
people of the territories to govern themselves. He denies the constitutional 
power of Congress to legislate for these territories." 

Is that question closed by the case referred to? The principle was placed not 
upon the extent of Congressional power, but on the ground of inherent and par- 
amount power. Its advocate, the esteemed and eminent Secretary of State, de- 
nied all power in Congress. This latter opinion the Court has sanctioned. They 
have said the power is not with Congress. Who knows, who can know, when 
the other question is before them that they will not also sanction Gen. Cass's 
other opinion, that it is with the territorial people as a fundamental and inherent 
right. Gentlemen who differ with .Judge Douglas and others, should, in good 
taste, be more diflident in the expression of their opinion on the point. Dog- 
maticallv announcing its correctness, they do not content themselves, as they 
did in 1854, and ever since, till Douglas's name towered high in the political 
horizon, threatening to obscure those of oihers, with meeting it in friendly argu- 
ment, but they demand submission to iheir own opinion, and not obtaining it, 
act or advise secession from conventions, to be followed in the future, if con- 
sistent with themselves, by attempted secession from the Union. Secession from 
the Union! How is so traitorous a wisii to be accomplished? What will not 
be the dishonor of those who shall attempt it? I think I can hear the genius of this. 
Freedom's temple, in words of consuming Gre, denounce it as treason to the 
hopes of the great and good men, who have so often lighted up its walls with 
tbe brilliancy of a patriotic national eloquence. I think I can hear her, in words 
of solemn import, imploring them against the endeavor, and warning them that 
whether successful or not, they will thereafter be remembered only in the con- 
secrated curses of mankind. 

But to return — is it not in the very spirit of the compromise of '51, that all 
should abide by all its terms, as well those in regard to the legal questions agreed 
to be referred to Judicial determination, as to the rest? And if as to these, an 
honest difference prevail in the party, should not all still agree to disagree as to 
that diflerence till its adjustment by the Courts is established beyond ail doubt. 
That the Democratic party in the the free States, and who for the most part, it 
it believed are ihefriends of Jud<re Douglas, concur with thejudge in the opinion, 
that such questions have not been judicially settled, and that this opinion is sin- 
cerely entertained, nojust and unprejudiced mind can deny. That such opinion 
tools correct I, a southern man, entertain a perfect conviction. And I mav, I 
hope, be excused for expressing it again with confidence, because of my profes- 
sional connection with the case, in which it is asserted by some Southern Dem- 
ocrats that these questions have been settled. 

The very principle of the Compromise was harmony as to all conflicting 
views. This harmony was to continue, till such conflict was closed by judicial 
arbitrament — and then all were with equal harmony lo support the principle, in 
that mode, established. At the time no case existed, involving the ri^ht to slave 
property, when denied by territorial local law. At this time no such case exists. 
Why then, should there now be, more than at that period, a necessity for the 
security of such property, of declaring, in advance of judicial decision, what are 
its righfs? On the cci-iirary, is not the South and every well-wisher of our 



10- 

happy Union more strongly invoked now than then, to guard against dissension 
in that party, which alone discards all fanatical opinions as to slavery, ftpd 
avows a fixed purpose of standing by everv right which the Supreme Court may 
decide belongs to it? Distraction now is full of peril to this national party, this 
heretofore consistent, zealous, powerful friend of the South. On its defeat, the 
almost certain result of their dissensions. Republican ascendency ensues; every 
branch of the government will then in a short interval be under Republican con- 
trol. And then where will the nation be? Where the South, on this great 
question of Southern rights? Wilmot Provisoes, the abolition of slavery every- 
where where it is maintained by that party the power in Congress to abolish it 
exists, the prevention of what is called the domestic slave trade, and a supreme 
judiciary certain to affirm the constitutionality of such legislation. The Dred 
Scott decision, — what will be its authority then ? it will be derided and trampled 
upon. All the security it justly throws around slave property will at the earliest 
moment he torn away. And these things hajjpening, what is to follow? As 
sure as Heaven's clouds of fire and tempest carry desolation in their train, so 
sure is it that this now peaceful and happy land will be shaken to its very 
foundations, and the Union, the glorious Union of our noble ancestors, an 
inheritance to us more precious than was ever conferred on a people^ will be 
tumbled into ruins, and the fondest hopes of the human race blasted forever. Is 
it possible that such calamities will be hazarded by my Southern brethren on a 
difference of opinion with their Norihern friends upon a mere legal question, 
conceded to be at this time of no practical consequence because of no practical 
operation, or on a mere difference as to the fact whether such question has been 
passed upon by such a judicial decision as it was agreed should conclude it? 
What possible harm can result to either section of the party, or what is of more 
importance to tbe country, from suspending still longer these conflicting opin- 
ions, till a case clearly embracing the question arises, and is disposed of. Tt was 
suspended from '54, in fact from '50, till now, and what evil has resulted to the 
South ? Has a single slave been lost to his owner by force of territorial law ; 
has an instance ever occurred where his right as owner has been challenged ? 
None. The dispute, therefore, as to what the law will be found to be, when the 
case does occur, is as theoretical and abstract an inquiry, to use the words of the 
present Secretary of the Treasury, as "ever was proposed for political discussion." 

If, gentlemen, what I am now addressing to you, should meet the eye of my 
Southern countrymen, who, I am sure, cannot doubt my friendship for them, or 
my loyalty to all their constitutional rights, I hope they will pardon me for implor- 
ing them, as due to their honor, to the faith pledged to their Northern brethren and 
to the peace of the country, that, waiving for a period this now idle, because the- 
oretical dispute, they unite hand and heart with such brethren, in the approach- 
ing contest, and with one great effort achieve a victory which will, perhaps for 
all time, terminate sectional agitation, and restore peace to a now fearfully dis- 
tracted land. There is nothing to prevent this union, beside an abstract dispute 
on a mooted legal proposition, other than personal hostility to the statesman who 
is supposed to be the choice of the Democracy of the free Slates. To attribute 
such hostility to mere personal nnotives of jealousy or rivalry, would be to impute 
dishonor. That purpose, therefore, I disclaim. The Southern mind is, I am 
sure, too generous and elevated to suffer so degrading a motive to sway its judg- 
ment. The hostility must, therefore, where it is felt, rest upon other and higher 
grounds. And this can only be a doubt of Judge Douglas's views on tiie South- 
ern right of slavery, or of his regard for the guarantees thrown around it by the 
Constitution. What warrant is there for such doubts ? His life is before us. He 
entered Congress in 1843, and has been in it ever since, and ever distinguished by 
an enlarged patriotism, and especially by his unwavering support of Southern 
rights. No member from a Southern State was, in this respect, ever more true to 
her. 

He advised and mainly effected the repeal of the Missouri restriction, so odious 
to Southern sentiment. He was for this, accomplished too under the certainty of a 
storm of Northern indignation, warmly, gratefully applauded by the South. No 
words of eulogy were too strong, then, with which to praise him. No words of 
gratitude were too exaggerated with which to thank him. The fury of the North 
he boldly met, and it succumbed before hirn. In a word, on this sectional and 
agitating subject he has proved himself a statesman of unsurpassed ability, of 
unflinching courage, and willing at all times of his career to hazard his own politi- 
cal existence in his own section, in order to preserve and maintain what he believed 



- " - tf>^*l - ^ - - ■ ^^-- . - - -■ -J^.*^ i i-.2 ^- ., i^MmJ-...^ -t-^ aifcfct.**. 



1i O x WIHi W Il ' |i» | i 



11 

to be the Constitutional rights of the South. What hut prejudice can question 
the assurance of his justice to the South furnished hy such a course. Can any 
fair and honorable Sniithern citizen, with this career before him, say in his heart 
that lie doubts Douijhis on any simple ([ueslion which can arise louciiinir theSoulli- 
ern right of slavery, in States or Territories. It is said that he beheves, (hat pos- 
sessing, as under the Kansas act, the right to manage their own instiliiiions in 
their awn way, a territorial people may, practically, exclude the instituiif)n, by 
failing to pass laws necessary to its safety. Is not this true? Assuming liiat 
such laws are necessary, and tliat the [xjsver to enact them is with the territorial 
legislature, does it not necessarily ibilDW that that power may not be used? The 
very authority to legislate includes tiie power not to legislate. Policy and justice 
may demand its exercise, bat, if refused or omitted, there is no authority to enforce 
it. No mandamus, or other proceeding, can be resorted to with tliat end. The 
power is in that regard omnipotent and exclusive. The only responsil)ility it is 
under is to the constituent body seieeting it, and public opinion. I'ui the view im- 
jjuted. to .Judge Douglas as wrong and unjust It) the South is not peculiar to him. 
It has been taken by Southern state.-;n)en of great ability, and now and ever justly 
high in the confidence of their section. I have but time to refer to two. Mr. 
Orr, of South Carolina, in a speeciv in the House of Representatives, on tiie 1 llh 
December, '5G, referring to what was called squatter sovereignty, said, "Although 
I deny tliat squatter sovereignly exists in the Territories of Kansas and Neiiraska 
by virtue of this bill, it is a matter practically of little consequence whether it does 
or not; and I think I shall be able to satisfy the gentleman of that. The <j;enllc- 
man knows that in every !iluvehnltlinf>; cominunity of thin Union ive have local Icixishi- 
tion and local pnlicc regulalions apperlainini^ lo thai institnt ion, ivithnnt which the 
institution wonltl not only be valueless, hat a curse to the community ; tvilliout them 
the slaveholder could not enforce his r?g7i/.s ivhen invaded by others ; and if you had 
no local legislation for the purpose of <j;iving protection, the institution icould be of 
no value. I can appeal to every gentleman upon this floor who represents a slave- 
holding constituency to attest the trutii of what I have said. 

" Now. the legislative authority of a Territory is invested with a discretion to vote 
for or against laws. We think tiiey ought to pass laws in every Territory when 
the Territory is open to settlement and slaveholders go there, to protect slave pro- 
perty. Bui if they decline to pass such latvs. ichat is the remedy? JVone, sir. If a 
majority of the people are opposed to tiie institution, and if they do not desire it 
engrafted upon their territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws 
in thp Territorial Legislature to prohibit it. Now I ask the gentleman what is the 
practical importance to result from the agitation and discussion of this question as 
to whether squater sovereignty does or does not exist? Practically, it is a matter 
of little moment." 

Col. Jefferson Davis, so long an ornament of the Senate of the United States, 
in a speech at Portland, Maine, in the fall or summer of 1858, now before me as 
revised by himself and published in Baltimore in 18r>9, meets the charge against 
the South as to "The aggressions of the slave power" in extending Slavery into 
the Territories in this way, "The Territory being the common 'properly of the 
States, equals in llie Union, and bound by the Constitution which recognizes pro- 
perty in slaves, il is an abuse of terms to call aggression the migration into that 
Territory of one of its joint owners, because carrying with him any species of 
property recognized by the Constitution of the United States. Tlie Federal Gov- 
ernment has no power to declare what is property anywhere. The power of each 
State cannot exitnul beyond its own limits. As a consequence, therefore, what- 
ever is property in any of the Slates must be so considered in any of the Terri- 
tories of the United States until they reach to the dignity of community indepen- 
dence, when the subject matter will be entirely under the control of the people 
and be determined by their fundamental law. 

" If the inhabitants of any Territory should refuse to enact such law and police 
regulations as would give security to their property or to his. it would be rendered 
more or less valueless in proportion to the difficulty of holding it without such 
protection. In the case of properly in the labor of man, or what is usually called 
slave property, the insecurity would be so great that the owner could not ordina- 
rily retain it. Thereliire, though the right would n>main, the remedy being with- 
held, il would follow the owner would he practically debarred by the circumstances 
ot the case, from takiiig slave property into a Territory where the sense of the 
inhabitants was oppo'ed to its introduction. So much for the oft-repealed fallacy 
of forcing Slavery urion any community." 



12 

Does any Southern man question the Southern feahy of Messrs. Orr or Davis? 
Who doubts their faithfuhiess to the asserted southern right of taking slaves to a 
territory? No one. And yet they had the good sense to see, and the frankness to 
avow the opinion, that without friendly legislation, slavery could not exist in a 
territory, and that this legislation was not to be expected, if a majority of the 
people were opposed to it. In such a contingency, they both held, that although 
the right existed it would be but a barren one, or to repeat the language of Col. 
Davis, "though the right would remain, the remedy being whhheld (proper police 
laws), it would follow that the owner would be practically debarred by the circum- 
stances, of course, from taking slave property into a territory where the sense of 
the inhabitants was opposed to its introduction." 

Now, I state to yon, gentlemen, with confidence, that, nothing has ever fallen 
from Judge Douglas, on this point, stronger than the doctrine of these gentlemen. 
He has been a.ssailed upon t'ne ground, that he had advised against friendly leuisla- 
tion. Nothing could be more erroneous or more unjust. In all that he has "said, 
he has but assumed the power of the Territorial Legislature to pass laws for the 
protection of slave property, and that having the power they might refuse to'legis- 
late, and because, if this last was actually done, that the prac'tical effect on the 
institution would be its exclusion. 

In a speech at Jonesboro', in September, '58, the only on§ I bave time to refer to, 
in replyuig to the present Hepublican candidate, Mr. Lincoln, in regard to the extent 
of the Dreii Scott de'cision, he stated this — " My doctrine is, that even taking Mr. 
Lincoln's view, that the decision recognizes the right of man to carry his slaves 
into the Territories of the United States, if he pleases," yet after be gets there, he 
needs affirmative law to make that right of any value. The same doctrine not only 
applies to slave property, but all other kinds of property. Chief Justice Taney 
places it upon the ground that slave property is on an equal footing with oth*er prop- 
erty. Suppose one of your merchants should move to Kansas and open a liquor 
store: he has a right to take groceries and liquors there, but the mode of selling 
them, and the circumstances under which they shall be sold, and all the remedies 
must be prescribed by local legislation, and if that is unfriendly, it will drive him 
out just as effectually as if there was a constitutional provision against the sale of 
liquor. So the absence of local legislation to encourage and support slave property 
in a Territory, excludes it practically just as effectually as if there was a positive 
constitutional provision against it. Hence I assert that under the Dred Scott deci- 
sion, you cannot maintain slavery a day in a Territory where there is an unwilling 
people and unfriendly legislation. If the people are opposed to it, our right is a 
barren, worthless, useless right, and if they are for it, they will support and encour- 
age it. We come right back, therefore, to the practical question, if the people of a 
Territory want slavery, they will have it, and if they do not want it, you cannot 
force it on them. And this is the practical question, the great principle, upon 
which our institutions rest. I am willing to take the decision of the Supreme Court 
as it was pronounced by that august tribunal, without stopping to inquire whether 
I would decide tliat way or not." 

His ground, it will be seen, is identical with that of Messrs. Orr and Davis. The 
acuti.st casuist can detect no difference. If he, then, is false to the South, so are they. 
And yet,th('y are in full communion with the Southern Democracy, whilst some of 
the South seek to ex-communicate liim. Gentlemen, there is so gross injustice in this, 
that the public, South and North; are forced to the conviction that it is persecution. 
It assumes the aspect of mere — individual, political persecution. This conclusion, too, 
the past as well as the present conduct of the Executive — goes to confirm. Never 
in the hir-tory of parties has executive power been so shamefully exerted against one 
man and his friends — even where they belonged to an opposite organization. The 
contest in Illinois, which resulted in the return of Judge Douglas to the Senate, 
was disfigured throughout by this bitter executive hostility. The officers in its 
service by orders, as plain by implication as if given in words, were enlisted for the 
war. If refusal or want of zeal was manifested, they were removed and more pliant 
aud willing instruments substituted. The success of the Kepnblican party, if this 
warfare succeeded, was certain, — still it was persevered in till the executive audits 
train-bands met at tlie hands of the true, independent Democracy of the State, an 
inglorious defeat. Tiiis should have satisfied them how hopeless is the attempt, by 
patronage and power, to sway the conthict of a free people. How idle the effort to 
ehake their confidence in a statesman, who, though his whole life has given evidence 
of uuwarying faithfulness, steadfast adherence to principle— unabated attachment 



13 

to tlie policy of Iiis piuty, all illustrated during a continued period of seventeen 
years of piililic service in tlie i-nimcils of tlie •jovi-rnintMit, hy an ability not only 
conceik'il, but oiiiiiiiMit, an ability wliicli makes liini in the jmli^nient of tliu country, 
tlie ornament and pride of the Imdy of which lie Ih now a member. But thi^re is in 
all countries a class of jieople, who, furfjetlinf^ everything that they should not 
forget, rememberinfi; nothinj; that they should remember — learn notliinjj. I'uliticiil 
Bourbons. And to this class the K.xecutive wouhi seem to belong. In the present 
contest they are engajjed, and with the same vindence in the same elTort. \Vliat to 
them is the [)opnIar voice? Tlieii prejudices are against it, and these, at fill d'st to 
the party and country, must, if possible, be f^ratiOed. Down with D.ai^^las — any 
body but Doujjlas — Lincoln even in preference, is their battle cr}', and it i.s made 
to rinjj; throui^h the land as loud and potent ialiy as their few followers can make it. 
Illinois again is made the scene of its violence, and what triumphant success has 
been the result. 

The delegation sent by its followers to Ciiarleston was, to the general joy, igno- 
minionsl}' rejected — not jiermilted even to cross the threshold of the Convention. 
Nothing, iiowcver, is yet learnt. The same ignorance of tlie public heart — the 
same selfish and personal influence continues every day. The j)ress under their control 
heaps unmeasured ami umnitigaled misrepresentations on the head of Douglas, and 
as in the past he but grows in the public favor. When will the blindness of this 
temporary, short-lived power be removed ? When will it awake to the true policy 
of the country, and to the true duty of submission to the will of the majority 7 
Perhaps, not until the 4th of March, ISGl^wlien it shall see the object of its wrath in 
possession of the very power which itself now holds and so abuses, and wielding it lie- 
fore a rejoicing country to the public good and honor. But in the Senate of the Uni- 
ted States, the same hostility is manifested. With no legislative or other pfiwers than 
are expressly conferred by the Constitution, with no solicitation from the Democratic 
people, to construct for them, in the coming contest, a party political cre<Hl, with 
no intimation that the}' feel themselves incompetent to such a work ; on tlie contrary, • 
with notice that the heretofore approved body of representatives selected by them for 
that purpose, is about to assemble for tiiat very end, these gentlemen, some of them 
strict constructionists, too, fnrsooth disciples of the resolution of '98, stepping' be- 
yond their constitutional sphere and tluty, assendile as Senators, in secret caucus, 
consisting of themselves alone, and with an assumed authority, promulgate what 
they say is the onl}' true admissible Demorcatic platform, and threaten to denounce 
as rebels all who refuse to stand upon it. No one esteems more highly than I do, 
the gentlemen concerned in this volunteer labor, this usurped function. No one esti- 
mates higher their talents — past public services or patriotism, but I know nothing 
notwithstanding, in their characters or present relation to the party which gives 
their eipise dixit on such a subject a claim of infallibility. On the contrary, there is 
so much in the history of the times, and the connection of some of them with it, 
tending to the belief, that the movement was more the result of personal motive 
than of a sense of 2)ublic necessity, that almost all are inclined lo exclaim that 
these are not the lights by which in its present emergency the party can ex- 
pect to be safely guided. But what enunciation of abstract principles have they 
given us. 1st. We are told how the constitution was adopted, a mere historical 
inquiry, and in this they err, if the Supreme Court is right. 2nd. Tiiat the States 
are entitled to equality of rights under it. This no one denies, the only question 
being what is equality. 3rd. What ammigst these is the right to take into and hold 
slaves in a Territory. 4th. Tiie right to have protection in the Territories of all 
constitutional rights. This also no one disputes. 5th. That if this protection is not 
furnished by the Territorial laws or by the judiciary, it will be the duty of Congress 
to pass the necessary laws for the purpose. This is likewise unquestioned. 

It will be observed therefore that the only principle here announced which 
every one of the Democracy did not before admit or does not now, is the right to 
take and hold slave property in the Territories except in subjection to the Territo- 
rial laws. And to this there prevails now as there did in '54 ditVerences of opinion, 
and the?e by the Compromise of that year, it was agreed to differ about until the point 
should be decided by theSuprme Court. As I have before told you, gentlemen, no 
such decision has as yet been made, and the caucus resolution upon the subject is 
consequently but an interpeliatii-n into the compromise, and in that particular a 
direct repudiation of it. But how unworthy, in my judgment and with all my South- 
ern feelings alive within me I say o, is it for the South to solicit in anticipation 
Ctmgressional intervent'.on for her security. lias it come to this! That the/ciiival- 
rous, bold, defiant South, who herself has always heretofore asked only to be let alone, 



1 



14 

but to be permitted to take care of this territorial right as well as all others in her own 
way, and at iier ovvu time, to invoke in advance Congressional jjiotection. Is she 
not strong enough in her own might ! Has she now for the first time, on the e.ve of 
a Presidential contest, become so aroused to her situation, and so alarmed at it, even 
before the exigency has occurred, or is threatened, that she invokes of her Nurthern 
friends a promise to come U> her aid, should the exigency ever happen, by Congres- 
sional intervention, and to hazard the very existence of the Democratic party, which 
she admits is tiie only National party, if such promise is not granted. I cannot per- 
mit myself to doubt that taking council of its sections courage, its historical firmness, 
the democracy of the South will reject so dishonoring a suggestion and say again as 
they said and with one voice in '54 and in '56, all that they will ask, or require, 
or permit, is that upon this subject, there shall be for all time Congressional non- 
intervention. 

Gentlemen should remember too that the authority to protect, may well be con- 
sidered, and certainly will be, as including the authority of Congress over the whole 
subject. Admit the one and it will be difficut to deny the other. And if, hereaftei* 
as will happen if the Republicans succeed in the coming contest, it is proposed to 
intervene to prohibit slavery, the strongest argument in its support, as far as the n)ere 
question of pov\er is concerned, will be this Senatorial causus admission of the power 
to intervene to protect it. Already we are notified of the nature of the hostility we 
are to expect should Republicanism gain the ascendency. I hope, gentlemen, I may 
not be esteemed as intending to disparage I\Iassachusetts by alluding, as evidence of 
this, for a passing moment and with sincere regret to the speech made on Monday last 
in the Senate of^he United States by one'of her representatives. Disparage Massa- 
chusetts! What American who remembers her past history, and who does not, 
could be so oblivious to national pride and gratitude as to seek her dishonor, and if he 
did. how vain would be the endeavor, tier fame is now but under a partial eclipse. 
It will, I doubt not, soon emerge and be. restored to its original brightness. Of the 
. gross vituperations, the filthy, loathsome malignity of the speech I have not the 
heart in this presence to say a word. Nor have I the wish to utter a syllable to 
touch with remorse did hisinsanity render that possible, the feelings of the speaker. 
To leave him to the agonies of his own passions, to the morbid mortification under 
which he has evidently suffered during the past four years from an occurrence which 
no one more regretted or depreciated than I did, and to the pity and contempt of 
the pure and good of all parties is sufficient to satisfy the most extreme justice. — 
But Massachusetts! What does, what must she feel when forced to look at her 
position on Monday and conipare her then rank among her sister States with that 
which she held when in days past, Webster's eloquence in the same forum made 
her name immortal. The only safe ground for the South, and the only one likely 
to promote the peace of the country, is absolute non-intervention, that policy so 
justly commended to general approval by President Buchanan in his letter of ac- 
ceptance of his nomination of the 16th of June, 1856, as " founded oil principles 
as ancient as free government itself," and which simply declares, " That the jjeople 
of a Territory like those of a Slate, shall decide for themsalves lohether slaveri/ shall 
or shall not exist within their liinits." 

The principles thus authoritatively stated are true, and because true must be per- 
manent. They know no change nor can the justice or universality of their operation 
cease to commend them to the approval and sanction of the good and patriotic, 
because politicians high or low may seem to forget or seek to repudiate them. And 
gentlemen, it is at this time even more than ever of vital importance that they be 
observed. Congressional intervention for the protection of slave property in the 
Territories is now asked by some Southern citizens. In declining to adopt this as 
a democratic doctrine, certain of the Soutliern delegates seceded from the Charleston 
Convention and the party is in danger of disruption from the same cause. Is the 
cause one that justifies or excuses a refusal to associate politically with Northern 
brethren ? If it is, where will it lead? No sane man can believe that such Con- 
o-ressional legislation can now be obtained. If not, the remedy, and the only one 
feft to the South, unless she is false to her professed conviction of duty, and acts tlie 
mere braggart, is secession froin Congress, and of course from the UnioD. Is this 
mere theoretical, abstract question, the most abstract as truly said by Governor 
Cobb ever presented for political discussion to sunder t,he ties which have so long 
and gloriously kept us together and made us a nation, the wonder and admiration 
of the world'? May the memory and spirit of our fathers forbid it! May the 
spirit of Washington save us from it! May the hopes of freedom throughout 
Christendom not be blasted by it! May so foul a dishonor never be suffered to 



15 

tarnish the Amorioan name. Oli ! tliat Clumto and Webster were liviiip; to animate 
tlie lienrls of tlicir countrymen, witli tlieir own initriotic lire, ami invoke them as 
tliey surely would to j^aflier around tlie Union and upon its altar swear peri)etual 
allejiiam-e to it. Oli ! tiiat they were now here to fill these walls once more, in this 
their country's trial, with their lessons of wisdom and duty and to commend them 
to national a])proval hy tlieir almost superhuman eloquence. But the liojie is vain. 
I.etus therefore, stimulated by the memories of the j^reat dead, nerve ourselves to 
the struL'jile. liCt us, standin"g by the rij^hts of all under the Constitution, maintain 
those rights with untiring devotion and with scrupulous good faith. Let us do all 
we can to restore our arcieut harmony, our former fraternity, and discarding 
all sectional prejudices, demonstrate to the world that we recogni/e as countrymen, 
the whole peo))le of the United States, that we know but one country, that which is 
now covered by one glorious ensign, of all the stripes and the stars, and that we will 
now and forever support the government formed by our fathers, for the common 
defence and general welfare, and to secure to them and their posterity, the blessings 
of liberty forever. Let us, in the words of a statesman, a native of your noble 
State, aiid whose whole life was distinguished by eminent service, even in the very 
highest office in the gift of his countrymen, adhere to this our purpose with inflexible 
resolution, as to the horns of the altar. Instil its principle with unwearied perse- 
verance into the minds of our children, bind our souls and theirs to the National 
Union, as the cords of life are centred in the heart, and wc surely then will " soar 
with rapid wing to the summit of human glory." 



LKTTKR OF THE HON. REVERDY JOHNSON, 

To the Chairman of the Douglas Meetiny in Neio York, on the 22d! 

of May, 1860. 

Washington, May 19, I860. 

Sir: I regret that I am unable to accept your invitation to the meeting to be held in 
your city on the 22d instant to approve the action of your State delegation in the 
Charleston Convention. Believing their course to have been right, it would give me 
pleasure to witness the sanction it is about to receive. 

On the issue now so sadly, if not perilously, distracting the country, I see no well 
grounded hope of meeting it successfully than by the selection of a CMiulidate for the 
Presidency of a statesman whose opinion u)ion the subject is, under all circumstances, 
the most likely to challenge general assent, because, when fully understood, it will be 
found to be alike just to all sections of the nation. 

The compromises of 1850 and 1854, it was confidently predicted, would put to rest 
forever the slavery agitation which had for years so alarmingly convulsed the land. 
This great end was to be achieved by removing the subject ttUogetlier from the halls of 
Congress, and subinittin<: it exclusively (subject only to such restraints as the Constitu- 
tion imposes) to the people of the Territories when le^^ally organized. 

By Southern and Northern gentlemen, then and now justly high in the public coun- 
cihs and in the public confidence, differences of opinion were entertained as to the ex- 
tent of the Territorial legislative power and of the Territorial people over slavery. 
Some held that its exclusion could only be effected when a State constitution was 
adopted. Others, that the Legislature possessed " entire control over the subject," and 
was "competent to establish, abolish, or protect it."* Others, again, said it was not 
" a matter of essential importance at what time the power may be exercised by the 
~^^ people of the Territories," it being "of infinitely more importance, both to the South 
u.«4. >be Union, that the power be left to the Territories, instead of the Federal Gov- 
ernment. "f The present distinguished Secretary of the Treasury maintmiied that the 
question i'self on which these various views were held involved but a '' purely theoret- 
ical issue" — " the purest abstraction, in a political point of view, that ever loas proposid for 
political discussion ;" for that, on eitheuof the hypothesis contended for, " the majority 
of the people, by the action of the Territorial Legislature, will decide the question, and 
all must abide the decision ivhen made." 

Such were the conflicting but the then harmonious practical interpretations of these 
compromises. To such compromises Judge Douglas, at the imminent hazard of polit- 
ical ruin in his own State and section, and from a deep sense of the constitutional rights 
of the South, has boldly aiijfl fniilifully adhered. The perils with which they encom- 
passed him, and which, wiljli such manly fortitude and consummate ability, he met and 
overcome, would, I doubt/not, have carried dismay to many who, now forgeiful of his 
services and loyalty to the South, are practically leagued with Northern and Southern 
foes to accomplish his downfall. JVot one opinion on the question avowed by him 

*Gov. Bigler./ t Hon. Mr. Iverson. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRES 




16 „ .,., „„„„„„ 

011 895 870 

dnrina; the debate on the compromises has he changed, or in the slightesi paruv.u,«> 
modified. Who, then, has changed? Let the record of the past ansv/er. 

The vindication for ihe admitted apparent change, and the excuse for the grossly 
uiijust and suicidal warfare on Douglas and his friends, waged by gentlemen of the section 
for whose rights he hazarded so much and so much contributed to uphold, is, that the 
question of Territorial power has been decided by the Supreme Court. This is asserted 
daily by many who, perhaps, never even read the Dred Scott judgment, or from their 
pursuits are incoinpetent to pass upoii|it. Having argued the case twice, as the friend 
of the South, and bestowed upon all the questions it involved, the most careful study I 
could, I state with perfect confidence that the question was not only not decided by the 
court, but was neither argued nor in any way presented for decision. The single 
inquiry in this connexion was, had Congress the power to prohibit slavery in a Terri- 
tory? When organized into a government, what the Territorial Legislature could do 
was not before the court, either directly or indii'ectly. 1 maintained, however, then, as 
1 think now, that the power was with such a Legislature. My proposition was — and 
it was stated as a reason against the existence of riie Congressional power — that slavery 
could " neither be established nor prohibited by congress," but that the people of a 
Territory, "when organized by Congress, can establish or prohibit it." Mr. 'Justice 
Curtis, in his opinion, so gives my proposition. I certainly never supposed that there 
existed in any part of the civilized world a government where slavery existed in which 
there was not somewhere authority to abolish it. Such a proposition to my mind is 
perfectly incomprehensible, and a libel on the great and good men to whom we are 
indebted for our admirable political institutions. There is not a word in the opinions 
of eitlier of the Judges even tending to prove that the Court, or any Judge, intended to 
pass upon the question or esteemed it iiefore them. Tliey examined only the power of 
Congress, the sole one presented for judgment. Inferences for or against the Territorial 
power from the court's judgment negativing the Congressional power maybe drav/n, 
but as to these there are honest differences of opinion. The passage in the opinion of the 
Chief Justice relied upon as denying the power, warrants no such conclusion. He is 
there dealing with the express restrictions of the Constitution on the power of the 
Government. His remarks embrace every part of the United States over which Con- 
gress can act at all. His purpose is to show that although the Territories are in some 
particulars and tor some purposes under the government of Congress, they are under it 
only in subordination to such restrictions. He applies what 'e says as well to the 
District of Columbia as to the Territories generally. And yet it will scarcely be main- 
tained that he designed to assert that Congress, subject to the restrictions referred to, 
has not. the power to prohibit slavery in the District, under the authority " to exercise 
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District." 

The exercise of such a power would be rash, and grossly inexpedient in the existing 
state of the country, but of the mere power there can be no well founded doubt. I do 
not believe that the authority of the Territorial Legislature was in the mind of the 
Chief Justice, certainly the question was not before him, nor alluded to, except as an 
argument against the Congressional power. Nor was it even referred to, as in the case, 
by any other Judge. It is, therefore, idle to con.sider it as decided. If this be so, and 
those who so think are as honest, and perhaps as capable of forming an opinion upon 
the subject as gentlemen having a different view, why should it not, be esteemed now an 
open question as it was when the compromise of '54 was passed? Why should the 
South not continue to agree, as she did then, to abide in good faith by the words of 
that act? Of their meaning it is impossible to doubt. The question of constitutional 
power is undecided. So think nearly all their associates and friends in the i'vee States — 
men who, with steadfast firmness and unflinching courage, stood by them in all their past 
struggles. So think thousands and thousands of Southern men as devoted to the rights 
of their section as any of their brethren, bound to it by the common ties of country, 
and nativity, and conviction. Harmony now. North and South, of the friends of the 
Union (for the most part, as I believe, to be found in the Democratic organization) is 
demanded more than ever for the very existence of our common Government. Shall 
that be hazarded upon what Gov. Cobb justly terms "the purest ab.'straction that was 
ever proposed for political discussion?" 

Imagine the Union broken to atoms upon this admitted abstraction. InTigine the 
Republican Lincoln, reeking with the grossest heresies of political Aboliaonisra, the 
true author of "the irreconcilable conflict," elected to the Presidency liecause of poli- 
ticians disputing on this "pure abstraction," started and fanned into a flame from per- 
haps personal rivalry or ambition, and then try if you can to conceive the fate of the 
men to whose machinations the dreadful calamity will, by the universal voice, be 
referred. I trust in heaven no such direful catastrophe is in store for us; l)ut that, 
uniting as a band of brothers, owing a common loyalty, and pledged, as in the past, to 
stand "by the compromises of '54, we will do so with unshaken honor, and achieve a 
Tictory, as in that case we can, which will for years, if not for all time, terminate the 
troubles of the South, and place the Government upon a footing of security which will 
cause the hearts of patriots everywhere to throb with delight, and gratitude. 
With respect, your obedient .-ervant, 

REVERDY JOHNSON. 
John Clancy, Esq., Chairman, &c.. New York. ^ 






